Amazon Cape Town headquarters — legal appeal to restart construction

Tags

---

30-03-2022
Read : 565 times
My Broadband
Source

The developer of Cape Town’s R4.6-billion River Club mixed-use complex set to include Amazon’s new Africa headquarters has applied for leave to appeal the Western Cape High Court judgement halting construction.

In a statement, the Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust (LLPT) said it was in the interest of justice that the court grants its leave to appeal, as the standing decision would lead to “serious, immediate, ongoing and irreparable” harm.

“It is clear that the court failed to consider properly, or at all, the evidence that by interdicting the LLPT from carrying out any construction work, the LLPT and the wider community would suffer severe and irreversible harm out of all proportion to that which might be sustained by the applicants, and none was evidenced by them,” the developer stated.

LLPT said if the order remained in effect, South Africa would lose 6,000 direct and 19,000 indirect jobs.

“This, in turn, will mean that the Cape Peninsula Khoi and their future generations will be deprived of the only feasible prospect of manifesting their intangible cultural heritage associated with the area, thereby endangering transmission of their cultural legacy,” LLPT stated.

“[This includes] the establishment of a Heritage, Cultural and Media Centre in the redevelopment, which will be operated and managed by the First Nations.”

The broader community would also lose out on “significant” socio-economic and environmental benefits due to the development, LLPT added.

That includes developer-subsidised housing for people that otherwise couldn’t afford to live in this suburb, extensive upgrades to surrounding roads, and green parks and gardens open to the public.

Concept renders of the River Club development

LLPT alleged the applicants in the case, the Goringhaicona Khoi Khoin Traditional Council (GKKTC) and Observatory Civic Association, failed to demonstrate any intangible cultural heritage resource that decision-makers in the development’s approval had not identified and assessed.

They also failed to show the inadequacy of the wide-ranging protection mechanisms included in the respective conditions of approval.

LLPT said despite the applicants having no legitimate claim over the intangible heritage over the broader Two Rivers area in which the River Club development was built, nor standing within the First Nations community, they were afforded the opportunity to submit comments during the approval process.

“Their comments were responded to and considered by the relevant authorities, who approved the project,” LLPT said.

Court order violates “hearsay” evidence principle

The developer added that it was not allowed to deal with unsubstantiated allegations made in court by GKKTC leader Tauriq Jenkins, who complained that a list of people opposed the development.

“LLPT was further denied the opportunity to place facts before the court, which would negate the hearsay evidence,” it added.

It also said that no parties were present in the court hearings, and no party filed any affidavit which demonstrated or alleged:

That they constitute or represent directly affected communities.
That their members are bearers of any intangible cultural heritage whose cultural identity or cultural life would allegedly be affected by the proposed development.
That they did not receive proper notice of the respective authorisation applications.
That they were otherwise excluded from any public participation or consultation process.

LLPT also denied allegations made by Jenkins that the social facilitator in the approval process was a member of the First Nation Collective, who favoured the development.

“Neither is he a beneficiary of any benefits that the First Nations will derive from the development nor has he benefited from any procurements related to the River Club,” the developer stated.

“The court denied both LLPT and Mr Arendse the opportunity to defend themselves against this vicious and false character assassination.”